# John Wayne "The Conqueror" ...



## Retrodeb54

Was the making of the movie 'The Conqueror' cursed or a *big* Hollywood mistake in location judgment? So many died of cancer that starred in and helped make the film possible. Some have tried to call it a curse, others a large scale deadly exposure to radiation fallout. 

http://www.utahgothic.com/movies/johnwayne.html .

I always felt there was a big cover-up done. That the truth is they knowingly filmed in a bad area that was poisoned by fallout from atomic bomb testing. Wanting maybe to believe it was harmless, yet knowing it was a risk. 

Nobody had the right to flip that coin as far as I'm concerned. I just can't see that many deaths from cancer as coincidence. 




P.S. Sombody had to be first I guess. Hope this is the type thing this new sub-forum is for. If not, sorry.


----------



## Retrodeb54

Another link.

http://www.gasdetection.com/intersc...queror-really-cursed-look-radiation-paranoia/


----------



## aps45819

Since it was routine at that time for large groups of people to stand outside and watch above ground nuke tests, I doubt if there was any intentional effort to deceive anybody


----------



## czygvtwkr

I saw a documentary on nuclear power that was filmed in the 50's.  They mentioned the protective gear the people must wear,  it was cellophane suits, lol.


----------



## Merlin99

Retrodeb54 said:


> Was the making of the movie 'The Conqueror' cursed or a *big* Hollywood mistake in location judgment? So many died of cancer that starred in and helped make the film possible. Some have tried to call it a curse, others a large scale deadly exposure to radiation fallout.
> 
> http://www.utahgothic.com/movies/johnwayne.html .
> 
> 
> I always felt there was a big cover-up done. That the truth is they knowingly filmed in a bad area that was poisoned by fallout from atomic bomb testing. Wanting maybe to believe it was harmless, yet knowing it was a risk.
> 
> Nobody had the right to flip that coin as far as I'm concerned. I just can't see that many deaths from cancer as coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. Sombody had to be first I guess. Hope this is the type thing this new sub-forum is for. If not, sorry.



I've seen the movie, it's definitely cursed. A 6'4" Mongol is about a foot and a half too much.


----------



## GURPS

I don't think is was so much a conspiracy ...
 .... I mean really in the 80's it was understood, they had been filming down range of a A-Bomb test ... and by then everyone on that film had died of some cancer or another


----------



## Retrodeb54

aps45819 said:


> Since it was routine at that time for large groups of people to stand outside and watch above ground nuke tests, I doubt if there was any intentional effort to deceive anybody



The dangers of fallout were known even then. Since there was possible risk, it never should have been filmed there. I bet the risk was played down because thats where they wanted to film it. Sad...*sigh*


----------



## Retrodeb54

Just for the 'halibut'...


----------



## Larry Gude

Retrodeb54 said:


> The dangers of fallout were known even then. Since there was possible risk, it never should have been filmed there. I bet the risk was played down because thats where they wanted to film it. Sad...*sigh*



I would expect they wanted to film there because they got a deal.


----------



## GURPS

Retrodeb54 said:


> Just for the 'halibut'...



:fixed:


----------



## Retrodeb54

My vid post was a time stamp of sorts only. Not to show futurestic devistation.To show they *did* already know that fallout was harmful at the time. That they acted irresponsibly because of greed. 



My grade school had a fallout shelter.


----------



## Lurk

Nobody has mentioned if the local residents, who would have been exposed to scads more radiation than the movie crews who were there for a short period, also died of cancer more than would be expected in a community where more people worked outside in the sun before anyone knew how to spell SPF.  Radioactive fallout would not selectively affect movie actors and crews and bypass those who had lived there all their lives.

Now to read the links to see if anyone else had these observations.


----------



## Retrodeb54

Lurk said:


> Nobody has mentioned if the local residents, who would have been exposed to scads more radiation than the movie crews who were there for a short period, also died of cancer more than would be expected in a community where more people worked outside in the sun before anyone knew how to spell SPF.  *Radioactive fallout would not selectively affect movie actors and crews and bypass those who had lived there all their lives.*Now to read the links to see if anyone else had these observations.


LIKE

So true. This thread was about the making of the movie and the connection, but I'm sure many succumbed to the fallout. I'm willing to read more on it, bring in a link specific to that.


----------



## RPMDAD

Retrodeb.  The film was made around the city of St.George Utah

Nuclear contamination

On May 19, 1953, the United States government detonated the 32-kiloton (130 TJ) atomic bomb (nicknamed "Harry") at the Nevada Test Site. The bomb later gained the name "Dirty Harry" because of the tremendous amount of off-site fallout generated by the bomb.[14] Winds carried fallout 135 miles (217 km) to St. George, where residents reported "an oddly metallic sort of taste in the air."[15]

The Howard Hughes motion picture, The Conqueror, was being filmed in the area of St. George at the time of the detonation. The fallout is often blamed for the unusually high percentage of cancer deaths among the cast and crew.

St. George received the brunt of the fallout of above-ground nuclear testing in the Yucca Flats/Nevada Test Site northwest of Las Vegas. Winds routinely carried the fallout of these tests directly through St. George and southern Utah. Marked increases in cancers such as leukemia, lymphoma, thyroid cancer, breast cancer, melanoma, bone cancer, brain tumors, and gastrointestinal tract cancers were reported from the mid-1950s through 1980.[16][17]

A 1962 United States Atomic Energy Commission report found that "children living in St. George, Utah may have received doses to the thyroid of radioiodine as high as 120 to 440 rads" (1.2 to 4.4 Gy).[18]

Taken From    http://www.ask.com/wiki/St._George,_Utah?o=2800&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com

Also   http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/utah_today/radiationdeathanddeception.html

Also

On May 19, 1953, a 32-kiloton atomic bomb was detonated at the Nevada Test Site. The bomb was code named Harry, but local residents gave it the nick name Dirty Harry after massive amounts of fallout blanketed the surrounding area. Exploding on the Yucca Flat, Harry had a blast three times the size of the Hiroshima bomb. On May 14, 37 members of congress had arrived to see the blast that had been scheduled that day. Delays kept pushing it back and as the delegation became impatient, only 23 members had stayed long enough to actually see the blast. In a trench 4,000 yards from ground zero, 900 servicemen witnessed the detonation.

Winds carried the fallout 135 miles to the town of St. George, UT. The AEC had set up monitors in the town which detected readings of 6,000 milliroentgens. Many of the people who were outside and downwind reported feeling ill on the day of the blast. People complained of headaches, fever, thirst, dizziness, loss of appetite, general malaise, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, hair loss, discoloration of fingernails, hemorrhaging, and burns to exposed skin. All of these are symptoms of radiation sickness and indicate exposure to relativity high doses of radiation.

Taken From   http://www.toxipedia.org/display/wanmec/Radioactive+Fallout+to+St.+George,+UT

Plus this is only one town or city.


----------



## Retrodeb54

Nice read RPMDAD, thank you for your input. It is all about a sad but important lesson, isn't it? The making of the Conqueror in spite of the risks, as well as the bomb itself being set off that close to population, with known risks being ignored. I of course realized the impact was not just on the people making the movie. 

I was trying to prompt Lurk to contribute, not just tell everyone to reread the same links. lol


----------



## Larry Gude

What would you, the generic 'you, any of you, do with this were it up to you:



> Later studies showed that children living in St George during the testing who were exposed to fallout died of leukemia at higher rates than normal. Dr. Joseph L. Lyon of the University of Utah's Medical College looked at the incidence of leukemia deaths among children aged 14 or less who were living in Utah counties along the fallout pathway during the 1950s. He found it was 2.4 times as high as the rate among people of the same age who lived in the same area before and since. Lyon's findings are not conclusive, since he had insufficient information to prove cause and effect in any individual death. The actual numbers were also small. There were 32 leukemia deaths in the counties receiving high fallout and versus the 13 that might normally be expected. Despite finding no direct link between the fallout and the higher rates of leukemia, Dr, Lyon found no other explanation.



Obviously, warnings before hand of the risk were estimates based on educated guessing. What if someone, through a report handed in with all the other guess, beforehand, said "This testing will result in 19 more deaths in the area from leukemia than would otherwise likely happen." ???

I am not trying to mitigate how awful it is for anyone to merely get sick from this sort of thing, by their own gummint, nor declare it OK, let alone die but, that was the world we lived in at the time; the enormous growth of nuclear weapons. I consider it reasonable to think that MAD, mutually assured destruction, rather likely prevented (postponed?) a third world war and that the world would NOT have been a better place had we stopped all testing and development of nukes. Maybe those 19 people died and saved millions?


----------



## Retrodeb54

Larry Gude said:


> What would you, the generic 'you, any of you, do with this were it up to you:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, warnings before hand of the risk were estimates based on educated guessing. What if someone, through a report handed in with all the other guess, beforehand, said "This testing will result in 19 more deaths in the area from leukemia than would otherwise likely happen." ???
> 
> I am not trying to mitigate how awful it is for anyone to merely get sick from this sort of thing, by their own gummint, nor declare it OK, let alone die but, that was the world we lived in at the time; the enormous growth of nuclear weapons. *I consider it reasonable to think that MAD, mutually assured destruction, rather likely prevented (postponed?) a third world war and that the world would NOT have been a better place had we stopped all testing and development of nukes. Maybe those 19 people died and saved millions?*



*LIKE* 

Good points.


----------



## Lurk

Retrodeb54 said:


> Nice read RPMDAD, thank you for your input. It is all about a sad but important lesson, isn't it? The making of the Conqueror in spite of the risks, as well as the bomb itself being set off that close to population, with known risks being ignored. I of course realized the impact was not just on the people making the movie.
> 
> I was trying to prompt Lurk to contribute, not just tell everyone to reread the same links. lol



I've actually seen some studies years ago which were done to try to prove a significant cause-and-effect for cancers in people who lived in those areas.  None can show a significant bump in cancer incidence or deaths.  Studies in the medical literature don't show up too well on Google.  RPMDAD's last link says there have been zero studies to raise concern.


----------



## RPMDAD

A little confused here Lurk, last link.

 At this time the AEC told local media that the "radiation had not reached a hazardous level." Residents of St. George reported a strange metallic taste in the air. This same phenomenon would be recorded at Three Mile Island 26 years later. The report also mentions the town of La Verkin, 20 miles northeast of St. George. Goats in the town turned blue after the clouds of fallout wafted through their grazing area. The AEC said this was because of them rubbing up against the zinc coating of the fence and did not mention fallout.

Just outside of St. George in Hamblin Valley, Elma Mackelprang was caring for some ewes and new born lambs. It was a cold morning so she left her three children inside her pickup truck. All of a sudden she saw a fine ash, like the kind from a forest fire, settle around her. That afternoon Mackelprang, who was 29 years old, suffered fever, nausea, and diarrhea. Her exposed skin burned and peeled several times. Three weeks later she began to lose her hair until she was complete bald. She lost her finer and toe nails which, along with her hair, eventually grew back. Her children did not show any signs of being sick. The AEC told a local official that Mackelprang's symptoms had not been caused by radiation, but we because of a recent hysterectomy.

Some of the children in the area had been showing signs of radiation sickness. State health officials investigated the matter, but being dependent on the AEC for confirmation of sickness, dismissed the idea that the children had been effected by radiation. A letter from them was published in a local paper saying the children had been the victims of measles.

 Eventually in 1966 there was a mass examination in St. George and the surrounding areas and another one in Safford, Arizona. The town of Safford was of similar size that had not been exposed to appreciable fallout. Of the 2,000 children examined in St. George, 70 (or 3.5%) had nodules on their thyroid glands. In Safford only 25 out of 1,400 (1.75%) had nodules.

After the results were released there was debate on the connection between the children's health and fallout. Surgeon General William H. Stewart reported the nodules as noncancerous and said there was no proof that radiation, whether from fallout or other sources, had anything to do with it. Some state officials accused the federal offices, especially the AEC, of downplaying the effect of the fallout. Dr. Robert C. Pendleton, the University of Utah's top expert on radiology and health, was critical of the results of the tests and dismissed even Dr. Stewart's announcement as "the same old bunkum."

Later studies showed that children living in St George during the testing who were exposed to fallout died of leukemia at higher rates than normal. Dr. Joseph L. Lyon of the University of Utah's Medical College looked at the incidence of leukemia deaths among children aged 14 or less who were living in Utah counties along the fallout pathway during the 1950s. He found it was 2.4 times as high as the rate among people of the same age who lived in the same area before and since. Lyon's findings are not conclusive, since he had insufficient information to prove cause and effect in any individual death. The actual numbers were also small. There were 32 leukemia deaths in the counties receiving high fallout and versus the 13 that might normally be expected. Despite finding no direct link between the fallout and the higher rates of leukemia, Dr, Lyon found no other explanation.


----------



## Lurk

RPMDAD said:


> Later studies showed that children living in St George during the testing who were exposed to fallout died of leukemia at higher rates than normal. Dr. Joseph L. Lyon of the University of Utah's Medical College looked at the incidence of leukemia deaths among children aged 14 or less who were living in Utah counties along the fallout pathway during the 1950s. He found it was 2.4 times as high as the rate among people of the same age who lived in the same area before and since. *Lyon's findings are not conclusive, since he had insufficient information to prove cause and effect in any individual death*. The actual numbers were also small. There were 32 leukemia deaths in the counties receiving high fallout and versus the 13 that might normally be expected. Despite finding *no direct link between the fallout and the higher rates of leukemia,* Dr, Lyon found no other explanation.



When reading scientific literature, if the numbers don't reach significance, you lose your case.  Not being able to find another cause means you didn't look hard enough or there is no link.


----------



## RPMDAD

Well i guess i agree then, the nuclear tests there and nuclear fallout, had no impact at all on the population in the surrounding areas. Just like the nuclear fallout had no impact on the areas close to or downwind Hiroshima or Nagasaki.


----------



## Lurk

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=409061  Not enough cases to make the case.

"The increase in leukemia deaths could be due to fallout or to some other unexplained factor.  Here's what Lyon actually said in that study referenced in your last link.

But none of that stopped Lyon from trying (and failing) to prove the association.

In the end, it is logical that radiation exposure is not good for the body and in all likelihood did cause some increases in cancer in children exposed when they were younger.  But the association with cancer in adults who were present in that area of the state is preposterous.


----------

